Originally posted by mellisamouse
We could start from scratch.....if we need to build a road, we all donate x amount of dollars through paypal for a road, and hold accountable whomever
builds it, we all pay x amount to hospitals if we use them?
Well, that won't work quite
the way you say it...Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1
that, "No State shall...emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." So, electronic transfers (or
any other kind of transfers, for that matter) consisting of Federal Reserve Notes would be illegal. They're not backed by gold or silver; they
haven't been since the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1939 & John F. Kennedy tried to rectify the crime of the Federal Reserve. At that time, the
federal government forced
all the States to allow Fed Notes a virtual monopoly
as currency-in-circulation. Wow, that's yet another
specific crime committed by the federal government! By the specifics of the Constitution, the federal government would have been entitled to circulate
it among federal agencies & offices, as well as for use in trade with foreign nations, but not
as a forced currency between the States & the
People. In your particular example, people might have to resort to gold/silver coinage or back to the basics of "barter" until a viable economy is
What I'm getting at is this...If we're all going to become individual sovereigns, we've all got to abide by the same set of Basic Laws to arbitrate
& enforce when we have grievances with each other. IMHO, the Constitution itself did so, by proclaiming that the Common Law (from which our Bill of
Rights originated) as the Supreme Law of the Land (Article 6, Clause 2
. In essence, the main body
of the Constitution stands as a contract of employment; We the People being the employers, the various government officials on all levels being our
The Bill of Rights (which had to be included before the Continental Congress would ratify the Constitution & they were all ratified as a whole) is the
incomplete set of laws in which our employees must obey. The Oath of Office (President's Oath is specified in
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 9
& all other Officers' Oaths described in Article 6, Clause 3) acts
as a lawfully binding "signature" of anyone who assume an Office. By the Law, no one may perform any action or exercise a Power in the name of
Office without taking the Oath of Office first. Any military guys/gals here? Remember you're
Oath of Office taken at the recruiting
At the core-essence, the Constitution, Bill of Rights & the entire body of Common Law can be boiled down to a simple concept; "You're Freedom ends
where my nose begins." Another way to put it could be, "You are free to do any damn thing you wish, as long as no one else is harmed
unnecessarily." By Common Law (The Supreme Law of the Land), government law enforcement agents are forbidden to charge any private citizen with any
crime whatsoever...Right up until that citizen has actually violated anyone else's equal Rights under the Law.
So, can all of these individual sovereigns stay on the same page? Probably not...That's why people create governments in the first place. But by
using Declarations of Sovereignty like the one described here, all of these individual sovereigns are already intending to stay on the same page
anyway! Such a Declaration, if carried out through the entire Due Process of Law are acknowledging that there already is
a Common Law among us
all. The Constitution demands a nation under the Rule of Law & was the first nation in all of human history to declare Common Law as the Supreme Law.
Oh sure, other nations in history have taken note of Common Law & many governments have even practiced it from time to time, but never before has it
been enforced as the Supreme Law of the Land...That is why the USA was described as the "Great American Experiment."
But when, where & how did the government turn us all into chattel & slaves in the first place? It began when government officials started abandoning
their Oaths, rejecting the Rule of Law, or simply by believing that they themselves were "above the law." A whole
was devoted to this subject...And it's important to know our own history & how
it came to be this way. If we don't understand the path that we mistakenly stepped on, we'll never find our way out of the woods. Besides the
Declaration of Individual Sovereignty in this thread, the linked thread also discusses a whole bunch of background about the laws & other concepts
that work in conjunction with this thread.
Originally posted by Dynamitrios
And please, please, please, if any Germans read this, or people who have knowlegde of German laws and statutes, and are savvy about how to pull
this thing of here in Europe(Germany) contact me immidiatelly (also seeking info about STRAWMAN redemption here in G.)
The thread I just linked to discusses various means for the Strawman Redemption, but it's mostly references to the USA & Canada...I'm afraid I
don't know where to find similar material for Germany. However, that thread may give you some leads on where to start looking!
Originally posted by autowrench
Whoa there! I am with you in intent, but please investigate filing a Notice of Understanding and Right instead. That way you keep your driver's
licence, (under protest, to keep from being harassed all the time) and you can still draw from the SS trust if you are injured.
Besides the links you included in your post, there are many others in the other thread I linked. This is the real
question of Individual
Sovereignty; Do you know the difference between you, the human being compared to the "fictional commercial entity" that was created for you? In
short, you must know who you are
& you can still legally keep the benefits they grant to your "strawman" while remaining separated from it.
The other thread I linked discusses the use of legal affidavits as "statements of lawful truth & intent of action." As such, this is merely one of
the steps in the Due Process of Law I mention elsewhere in this post.
Originally posted by threekings
Because we are governed mostly by UCC Law, (Commercial Law/Contractual Law) What this movement and these people are saying is actually true. The
problem with this though, is that it is damn near impossible to not enter contract with the corporation of the U.S. or the Corporation of Canada when
you have just about any dealings with them.
From what I understand you will not receive any document stating your sovereign status. You can live as a sovereign amongst normal people being a
person of the land. A living being, living on the land.
Except.... That if you want to do any commercial business at all, you are then subject to UCC Law, Commercial Law.
And this is something you can use against them if they try to drag you into one of their corporate courts! They owe their jobs to the UCC & you can
really get under their skins by verifying, on the record
, that they too are bound by the Oath of Office & the Constitution as a Contract of
Employment! By showing them the discrepancy between their Oath & their actions in violation of the Due Process of Law, they figure out that it'll
cost them their jobs!
As Dynamitrios said earlier, "As i read somewhere else: "Don´t threaten their lives, threaten their jobs." Now, stop & consider this as one
ramification of getting them all fired
...While acting a corporation, these officers have put a lot of people
on the unemployment line. At least some
of those people will recognize the very same "representatives" who got them put out of a job when
show up in line too...
Originally posted by endisnighe
Actually you are close, but incorrect. No lawyer is required. If you do that you are falling into another contractual agreement. You must file with
all of your local, state and federal representatives. Am still working on the info. They made it hard, but my brain is like a sponge. Star for you and
thanks for commenting.
To fully cover all your bases, also have your affidavits & declarations filed & recorded in the Records Halls at city, county & state levels, as well
as all the others you send out. But you also must include a limited-time (usually, 30 days is sufficient) opportunity for any of the notified
officials to offer a point-by-point rebuttal to every one of your "statements of fact." If the time passes & none can successfully
your statements of fact as not being lawful (& cite the law to support their rebuttal), then it stands enforcable in court under the Law. Basically,
they would have to be able to find an actual Law that would show your statements to be untrue & they have to prove it, point-by-point,
Originally posted by threekings
So far, the only successes I have found have been wiped away from the internet. People need to see this actually work before they believe
And that's exactly why they try to keep the people ignorant of the truth & why we must also
strive to keep the internet free
(kudos to Simon Gray for this link) as the last
bastion of free expression.